This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
So I am lead to believe that my subject Mr. Gragg, of whom I have never personally met and have only been his ebooks and app publicist, is to sit back and allow his bio and invention entire sections to be repeated deleted and thrown by the wayside as you continually allow people to come in and vandalize the Wikipedia page about his invention, that by the way, created an entire industry of free-spinning-spinners in the new millennium no less! This is the inaccuracy you are wanting? Is this how you handle these things? I might be wasting my time here with you, as the new changes I have seen was written by someone that thinks that "Knock-Off" spinners were "hubcaps" and optional in the early years! And further thinks that "hubcaps" were "spinners". So as you make these errors, you are attempting to delete the actually one that invented the free-spinning-spinners and yet allow this vandalism but threat Mr. Gragg because of his frustration! On a side note, there were no legal threats made towards you whatsoever! I was explaining that Mr. Gragg in going through and identity theft issue and he has worked with the FBI before for years attempting to stop the illegal pirating in the United States, which is also quite a task that has drawn much attention, and intends to find out who is doing this along with the cyber-attacks on his reputation. Please get back to me about your decisions. Thank you ~~Heather~~ PS: And whomever has written the wheel spinners correction actually "thinks" The Spinners singing group was named after a "hubcap"???You are kidding????
With all due respect, Ms Ussery, there is very little that can be done until you have read my post above, and followed the links to the various policies. If there is anything you don't understand, either JamesBwatson or I will be happy to explain. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Much of what you say is covered by my reply to James Gragg above, which I suggest you read. Like him, you seem, unfortunately, to have mistaken the nature of Wikipedia in some ways. There are a few further points in your message, which are not covered above, so I will comment on them here.
If the "entire industry of free-spinning-spinners" is really significant, then there will exist substantial coverage in independentreliable sources, and on the basis of them, it will be possible to write about them. The insistence that content be based on such reliable sources is not just a whim, but is necessary. Unfortunately, in a web site which anyone can edit, it is inevitable, as you can no doubt well imagine, that we get enormous amounts of unsuitable and unreliable claims posted, for various reasons, including childish vandalism, good faith but mistaken beliefs, attempts to abuse Wikipedia by using it to promote one side in an external dispute, and many other reasons. It is only by requiring that content be based on neutral, third party, reliable sources, that we can seek to exclude such unhelpful content.
Such a significant "entire industry" will almost certainly attract the attention of some outsider, who will be able to write a neutral, third party account, without giving any impression of promotion or serving their self interest. The account will also benefit from the fact that its content will not be influenced by considerations extraneous to writing an encyclopaedia article, such as the desire to keep a record of legal background, of importance to an involved person, but of little if any interest or relevance to the general reader. It will therefore be unnecessary, as well as highly undesirable, for an account to be written by a person seeking to write an account serving the personal purposes of an involved person.
You dismiss, indeed I may say ridicule, the fact that someone 'thinks that "Knock-Off" spinners were "hubcaps".' A Google search produced numerous pages that link the terms together, of which here is a very small sample: [1][2][3][4]. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that someone could be under that impression. If you know better, then perhaps you could explain courteously to the editor in question why they are mistaken, and suggest to them possible improvements to their writing, rather than dismiss their good-faith attempts to contribute as "vandalism".
You likewise ridicule the notion that "whomever [sic] has written the wheel spinners correction actually thinks The Spinners singing group was named after a hubcap". There are numerous sources that state this to be the case, such as this one, which says "The group borrows their name from the Spinners hubcap". If you have good evidence that such sources are all mistaken, then please present your evidence, and we can consider editing the article accordingly.
I know nothing about any "legal threat". Perhaps you would like to take that up with the editor who suggested there was one. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
See the article's history for the legal threat at one of the editors. I think this is just about wrapped up now, thanks for cleaning the section up James. I don't think we'll be hearing much more from Mr Gragg and Ms Ussery who are possibly editing from the same building. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see it now, in this edit summary. About as clear a legal threat as I can imagine. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The original Introduction and Legal arena served it's purpose for a very long time. As it stated, many in the legal community was watching this case of which I prevailed 100%. Removing the legal notice from Wikipedia didn't bother me at all and didn't even know I was in it as you should know after reading how you did a background search of me and knew about Heather. She is not a Wikipedia person either. We need and use more reliable sources. I personally fight for the "rights of the right" in all areas with all intellectual property. It was when this Clevid (a name something of that nature)started vandalizing the page for no other reason than to remove all information about THE inventor and patent holder of the modernday free spinning spinners, me. This all started over a creep (Clevid) my step-daughter met up with on Facebook and her brothers friend is the Srennipsurt and brought this to my attention. Now, I don't have time for this and could really care less as Wikipedia does not bolster me, especially with all the other profiles written about me as an American Inventor with over 100 inventions from Masonic Capron, Wall Street Journal, Legal Metric, Tech-EUROPE + + + + + + + + I could care less about Wikipedia, but when you start associating and passing """inaccurate information about my creations/inventions""""", you then involved me, my reputation and the creed and authenticity of 99 other inventions of mine! ........This is why I am writing you now.
Example, you didn't mind using the extensive "knowledge" given to you by Khris Kidd, but you sure don't want to mention the inventor that gave you this knowledge, ME! .....Yes! I came into Wikipedia using my friend's Khris's account as I have no Wikipedia account of my own, don't want one, don't need one, and I have now made "my point". Again, I made my point and that is it for me, but you have sure angered several people that know me by first allowing the vandalism to repeatedly take place and know disregarding the inventor as an integral part of the modern day free-spinning spinners in it's entirety.
So I will go on about my business as I have a very large power unit I am working on for 3rd world countries as I make many contribution to my fellow man. You can go on about your business editing and mis-informing Wikipedia readers with half-truths and incomplete information and taking credit for others reliable information. And I am real sure my children's friends will continue to go on about their business, even going against what I told them to do, stop it, drop it! Then they showed me that they had performed their own due diligence Googling "Wikipedia Sucks" and how 38% of people already know what we know. They seem to have it in their heads that 100% of the private sector needs to know. But I cannot prompt them on what to do no more than I can prompt you, so we have all chosen our own positions. Thank you for your time, J.D. Gragg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srennipsurt (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You know, I just came back about this comment to say 'how professional of you', but I now see you have some sense and retracted it. So my statement 'WAS' going to be, "you really should play someone as 'bonkers' a game of chess for 10K USD as I will fly anywhere, anytime to meet you to pursue it", but then I too realized that I was probably over reacting some. I will say that it seems that all the Wiki editors are not quite focused at the same objective as some THINK it is a dictionary and others seem to treat more as a 'partial' encyclopedia, only up to their ability of understanding similar to your methods. Example, Stephen Hawkings could correct his own 'string theory' and the Wiki crew wouldn't correct it until they read it in Popular Science! See my point? The same point I made when you all just LOVED the earlier day Wheel Spinner (Knock-offs) correction done under the name Khris Kidd which was actually ME using his account, so as you may see, it is not only us people on the outside of Wiki that carries a bias into an article. I must say though, most of you that I have met are a prime example of the Dunning-Krugar Effect, especially YOU! Please, do not confuse that ability of Wiki Coding to IQ. Here's your tides ~~J.D.Gragg~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srennipsurt (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a total waste of time
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Wikipedia is a total waste of time and my readers will soon find that out as well, you try to call yourself a Encyclopedia ha ha ha ha!! i think it is time you woke up and seen reality, because your poor readers will get less i promise you that, when i have told everyone how you pretend to be what you are not, and that is not an Encyclopedia, people will understand you do not tell everything about any subject, just what you want people to know and that is it.
good bye you sad people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.48.45 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what your purpose is in keeping on plugging the fact that you will tell others that Wikipedia is a waste of time. If, however, you think that doing so will be a great novel revelation, you should perhaps be aware that there are a good many people who have been thwarted in their attempts to abuse Wikipedia in one way or another, and have gone off in a huff and posted stuff on the internet about how evil Wikipedia is. In fact, there are whole web sites which exist for the sole purpose of letting such disgruntled people tell one another how dreadful Wikipedia is. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Goodbye Adrian Jeens, may you be successful in your positive endeavors. — Jason Sosa 22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Spinner
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings JamesBWatson
I appreciate your wish for anonymity but would prefer to correspond with the real you, as I am not writing under a nom de plume.
Can you help me? You have removed our post Recycling Times Media Corporation. I believe it is a notable organisation given it runs the largest consumables trade show on the planet (which can be verified by other sources), broadcasts the only imaging news in a weekly 7 minute bulletin, has just opened the first digital printing show in China.
I worked with my staff to remove any and all adjectives which might make the article appear to be promotional. We simply wanted to put the facts there.
Can you please advise me as to how we can record these historical and true facts, together with other related news developments.
Since you evidently have a conflict of interest, you should not be trying to create an article on this subject. If the subject is truly notable then no doubt some impartial third party editor will create an article about it.
Nothing in either version of the article even remotely began to indicate that the subject satisfied Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, sometimes this is the case for a truly notable subject, because the article was written by a user who does not understand what sort of evidence of notability is required, so I have searched for information myself. What I saw was massive amounts of coverage in web sites owned by or affiliated to the business, business listing sites, promotional sites, etc etc, but nothing that could be regarded as coverage in reliable independent sources. This encourages me to believe that the subject probably does not satisfy the notability guidelines. In fact, what I saw looked exactly like what one sees for a business with a very large campaign to promote itself everywhere it can. That is fine, but Wikipedia cannot be part of that process.
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello JamesBWatson,
There is a user from a neighborhood country of mine who appears to hanker after having me blocked. This is a rather confused report. However, at
[5]
4.[34] Conditional unblock for edit warring and because Nmate removed data of users that were not confirmed socks yet.
It was when you blocked me on the grounds that I reverted edits made to Wikipedia by a sockpuppet of Iaaasi. That is why I would like you to comment on this.--Nmate (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I have read through the case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that you refer to, and also many of the diffs presented there. My impression is that the whole thing is a typical example of what happens when we get infantile nationalists of different ethnic backgrounds battling against one another, each being totally blind to logic. (I say "infantile nationalists" because, in my opinion, all nationalism, of whatever kind, is infantile.) The case is a complex one, and it would take an enormous amount of time and effort to sort my way through such a morass. I don't think helping adult people sort out their childish quarrels is worth spending so much of my time on. My advice is "Forget the whole thing. Walk away from it, and find something more productive to do with your time than quarrelling over ethnicity issues." Moreover, I fully intend to take that advice myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I wish I was able to take your advice. However, it was not me who submitted the report; I am reported there. These types of reports may result in me being blocked that is the reason why I feel the need to defend myself there. In addition, this user already contributed in a succesfull block-shopping aimed at me last year, and I couldn't appeal it, because the appealing system does not work in Wikipedia in an effective way. (See: 13:30 4 October, 2011,00:07 5 October, 2011)
Most of the diffs of which have been brought up against me do not involve the reporter in any way. The reporter of this recent RFA has been watching all of my contributions to Wikipedia to pick a quarrel with for block shopping purposes. This user has a long history of weird obsession with myself. For example, the reporter is making demands for admin actions against me for some kind of purporated personal attacks when the users in question against whom I allegedly made personal attacks the reporter has never ever interacted with on Wikipedia. Also, this user is accusing me of some kind of misty bad faith acting towards 3 users he has never ever interacted with on Wikipedia. So that I can't avoid this user unless I quit editing Wikipedia. Without being watched by this user, I can neither edit articles in Wikipedia ,nor interact with other users, I can't make myself independent from the circumstances I get involved in.--Nmate (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, whether you are able to "take my advice" or not, I still intend to take it myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This editor is a self admitted schoolboy, and while his edits have been less than ideal I do not believe that any harm was meant by them. but competence is clearly an issue. Could I suggest that he be offered unblock on condition that a mentor be found for him? I would do it, but tomorrow I leave the country for a holiday and cannot help him from Bali!--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I unblocked after checking his talk page and yours to see if you had responded to my message, but stupidly without thinking of checking here. However, I will suggest to the user that he seek a mentor, and if he doesn't then I will keep a close eye on his edits, and advise him as necessary, and if there seem to be significant problems I will strongly suggest that more formal mentoring is needed. If I had seen your message earlier I would have discussed it further before unblocking, though my experience leads me to be doubtful about the effectiveness of making mentoring a condition of unblocking. I am much inclined to agree with Wikipedia:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship, which says "Involuntary mentorship has a very poor track record and is not recommended." I have also more than once seen the situation where an admin makes getting a mentor a condition of an unblock, the blocked editor agrees, but the whole process is then obstructed for the reason described at Wikipedia:Keep it down to earth, which says "Don't try to wish a mentor into existence where no one has stepped forward, unless you're prepared to become the mentor." At the informal level of, as I said, keeping an eye on the edits and offering advice, I am willing to be a mentor, but not to do anything more organised than that. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thanks for that,i have a teacher at school who appantly used to be a wikieditor.Gregory1132 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Since your an admin Im am here to report IllaZilla (talk) because he is constantly warring and blanking pages. Such as Tune In, Tokyo..., International Supervideos! and a few others I gave him multiple warnings and even tried to mix ours ideas with his to prevent warring but even then he keeps reverting my changes and tries to force his work to get through over mine. BlackDragon 21:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Once again i have warned to stop blanking pages and he keeps removing the warning tag on his page BlackDragon 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI, this dispute concerns 3 article: International Superhits!, International Supervideos!, and Tune In, Tokyo.... That latter 2 were redirected (in 2011 and 2010, respectively), and Black60dragon recently un-redirected them. I reverted, hence the accusation of "blanking pages". I did so because his changes did not address the reasons the articles were redirected in the first place, which in a nutshell is WP:NALBUMS. I was not the original redirector of either article. I have taken Tune In, Tokyo... to AfD since I strongly believe it does not pass NALBUMS. As for International Superhits!, while Black60dragon has been busy leaving me templated warnings I have taken that article from Start class to B, and intent to keep expanding it. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I find it striking that Black60dragon (who signs "BlackDragon") says that IllaZilla "keeps removing the warning tag on his page", and yet Black60dragon has himself/herself recently removed numerous warnings from his/her talk page. I also see that Black60dragon has given warnings for edit warring, where he/she is as much involved as anyone. IllaZilla has given cogent reasons, based on Wikipedia's guidelines and expressed courteously, to justify his edits. Meanwhile, Black60dragon's reasons amount to little more than "I think it should be this way", and sometimes his/her messages have been somewhat aggressive in tone. We also have here a rather unconstructive looking edit summary. (What a pity that it was too long, so we will probably never know what it was intended to say about "being man".) You may both think it worth pursuing dispute resolution, but I suggest that Black60dragon may be well advised to read WP:BOOMERANG. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
First I can sign my name however I want it doesnt make a difference and I removed them after i was banned the first time and a second time well after they were their to clean it up slightly and I didnt remove it right when its was put as he did again i stopped warring and tried to find a mid point where as he didnt. And last time when both were at fault I was the one punished. I didnt just say that and he keeps blanking pages such as those I stopped making Vidos! page but he still just blanked Tokyo before i told him he had to do a deletion for it. And that one was said right after I was editing a talk page to add a category when i thought I was editing the Tokyo... talk page but was instead BBBPP and before i realized it was I accidently hit save instead of preview and was in the middle of changing it when he instantly reverted it. So he seems to constantly look at what pages I post just to revert them. Doesnt it seem like that? And once again he blanked Tune In Tokyo even though it was supported by numerous sources that are reliable, such as VH1 and ArtistDirect and the members and production were from the booklet inside. And even though it was he blanked it because I made it even though other Pages by green day have no refs whatsoever. that is my complaint.BlackDragon 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Some comic relief for you?
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Why not, Mycroft? I will try to remember to do so, though please forgive me if and when I forget. After all, in the books "that I wrote", I managed to even forget my own first name. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I wondered that too, but something else puzzles me. I couldn't see a block on the IP, and I'd blocked User:Nkarthik mnnit back in July, so any autoblocks should have well expired anyway - and the IP has been active since then. Any ideas what's happening? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I too used to be puzzled by this sort of situation. However, eventually I found out that, if a blocked user comes back and tries to edit, the autoblock is re-started, even if it had been defunct for several years. That is what I was referring to when I wrote "the same IP address that he/she had attempted to edit from only a very short time before". The autoblock is dated 09:10, 11 October 2012, and so that must be when Nkarthik mnnit tried to edit, and clearly Geocraze then tried to edit from the same IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's interesting to know, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
how to change a snooker event from one section to another after talkpage deadlock
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
hi james i am writing to you for info on how to change the Premier League 2011 Snooker event from a variant event to a non ranking event.a user who i know on here wants to change the event as he believes it is in the wrong section.he was told by armbrust to start a snooker talkpage which he did.he was told by armbrust if the majority of people wanted to change the event it would be ok.the majority wanted to change only two people did not.then armbrust said he had no evidence to change the event.my friend has painstakinly contacted World Snooker and respected snooker statistician David Hendon who provides stats for bbc and eurosport both sent him emails saying the event was still non ranking instead of variant which armbrust claims.when armbrust was told about the emails and the evidence we all finally needed to put this to bed.he did not want to hear about it.i get the impression he will not listen to reason as he just does not want to change this event.the evidence is there but now we have deadlock.what can i do to change this regards shane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.127.21 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If Armbrust told you "if the majority of people wanted to change the event it would be ok" then that is unfortunate, because he or she, no doubt quite unintentionally, gve you a misleading impression. On Wikipedia we do not decide things by majority voting. We decide on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Where there is reasonable disagreement on how to apply those policies and guidelines in a particular case, we discuss the issue, and assess whether there is a consensus. However, in assessing consensus we consider not just the number of people supporting each view, but the strength of their arguments, and how far those arguments are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are very good reasons why we don't simply use majority rule, and I will explain a few of them for you.
There are times when a number of people support a particular line without any good reason, and often with reasons which are completely incompatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It would not be constructive to take six people who say "we should keep this article because I like it and that's a good enough reason" as outweighing four people who give several different reasons why the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards.
Sometimes someone makes a deliberate attempt to "rig the vote" in a discussion by going to places away from Wikipedia and inviting others to come here to support his/her line. Obviously it would not be helpful to allow this to determine the outcome of a discussion.
Sometimes someone pretends to be several different people, so as to make it look as if there are several people in support of a particular line. Obviously, it would not be helpful to let this determine the outcome of a discussion.
To show you the sort of thing that can happen, I will describe a real case that I have just been looking into. An editor wants to change a particular statement in an article. Other people have given good reasons not to, but the one editor does not take the the mature line "OK, well I disagree, but I will accept that consensus is against me, and move on to do other things", but rather takes the somewhat immature line "I am RIGHT and I don't care what anyone else thinks. I will do everything I can to force my opinion through, whether honest or dishonest". A string of opinions have been posted supporting this one person's view. The topic in question is one of international importance, and yet every one of the people who has come along to support the stubborn editor's line is from one fairly small country, and what is more several of them use just a couple of ISPs. They all use essentially the same reasons for supporting the original editor. They all have a similar writing style, and other similarities in their editing. It is blatantly obvious that it is one person pretending to be several. (In fact, if I told you about some of the similarities, you would not think "Hmm, I wonder if this is really just one person", you would think "My god! How can anybody be so completely stupid as to provide so many obvious give-aways? Nobody is ever going to be fooled by this.")
I can't tell what you will make of being told about that. Perhaps you will be horrified to learn that there are people who edit Wikipedia in such a dishonest way. Perhaps you will be amazed that there are people who are so full of their own sense of being RIGHT that they are willing to try to ride rough-shod over everyone else's opinions. Perhaps not: perhaps you yourself have experience of people doing exactly that.
OK, so I have now given you a bit of an idea of some (not all) of the reasons why we don't make decisions on the basis of a majority vote, and I have given you a description of just one recent case of a dishonest attempt to fix a result, out of the very many that I have seen over the years in which I have been a Wikipedia administrator. Now let's get back to the issue you have asked about. In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker, on one side a number of people have given clear, cogent reasons, based on Wikipedia's policies, and in particular on the requirement that we follow reliable source. On the other side, we have vague reasons, not well-grounded in policy, unsupported by reliable sources, and even (believe it or not) using such reasons as "I have been personally told this by someone in the know, so you can all take my word for it." Consensus is unambiguous, and the number of people who have been involved is not relevant. I suggest that you and the "user who [you] know" accept that consensus is against you, and drop the matter.
I will just mention one other thing. In the case I mentioned above, where one person is clearly pretending to be several, enough people have already had enough of their time wasted by this one uncooperative editor, and I am now ready to take administrative action if the troublemaker continues any more at all. In such cases "administrative action" can involve: blocking IP addresses; if necessary blocking several whole ranges of IP addresses to prevent jumping from one to another; protecting the pages affected to restrict who can edit them (this can apply to articles, talk pages, and any other pages involved). I hope none of those is necessary in the case I told you about, because they would have unfortunate side effects. For example, blocking IP addresses would prevent the editor in question from making constructive edits to other pages. However, I mention it just in case you may be interested in knowing what can happen in a case where such dishonesty and stubborn refusal to accept consensus are persistent. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I never said, that ""if the majority of people wanted to change the event it would be ok". I event pointed out to him (at least twice), that consensus doesn't work on head-counting. Armbrust, B.Ed.WrestleMania XXVIIIThe Undertaker 20–0 10:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Messsage
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry i didnt realise i had to put in a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattninja (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Test Page
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Since you deleted Smallia, do you think this has enough sources? [6]— Preceding unsigned comment added by MicronationKing (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I deleted Smallia because it was a redirect to a non-existent page. As far as I remember I had never even seen the content of the deleted page it had once redirected to, so I don't see I am any more relevant than anyone else. However, since you ask, the number of sources is irrelevant: what matters is their quality. None of them is a reliable source. Wikipedia does not exist for people to publicise their games, fantasies, or made-up "micronations" that have no significance or notability. I suggest that you use a free webspace provider or a social network site to write about your imaginary kingdom, as Wikipedia is not the place to do so, and anything you write about it is likely to be deleted, no matter how many "sources" you waste you time creating and linking in to your Wikipedia page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"Talkback" is used on Wikipedia to mean refer to a message on a user's talk page, telling them to look back at another user's talk page to read an answer to a message they had posted. So what I meant by "talkback" was "hey, come back to my talk page to read my answer to your message". Sorry I didn't make that clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think all micronations are fake, First thing, I didn't create Smallia (the micronation) nor make the sources.. Last time I forget to add the sources. I mean how many sources does my page need? MicronationKing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, perhaps one of your friends invented it, or perhaps someone you don't know invented it, and you found their web site. It really doesn't matter: it is a completely non-notable idea made up by someone for their own amusement, and perhaps their friends' amusement, and it has received zero attention in serious, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to try to get publicity for something which so far is virtually unknown.
As for your question "how many sources does my page need?" did you actually read the answer I wrote the last time you asked virtually the same question? Although my answer is still visible above, I will repeat it: the number of sources is irrelevant: what matters is their quality. None of them is a reliable source. If you like, you can look at Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources to see what sort of thing is required, but my advice is to drop the matter, as there is no chance at all of your managing to get your page kept, and every minute you waste on trying to do so is a minute you could have spent doing something that you might have a chance at succeeding with, such as writing about "Smallia" on some other web site, or making contributions to Wikipedia on a more significant subject, or growing tomatoes, or writing stories, or ... JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
A piece of AfD advice
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asianet Pakistan, you mentioned that you searched with Google search engine. However, as mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article.28s.29_for_deletion section D, the best place to search for sources is Google News, Google News archives and Google Books. If the nomination is for an academic, you should search with Google Scholar. Google main search engine will rarely provide significant results but rather primary sources, social networking profiles, etc. Cheers! SwisterTwistertalk 21:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Google Scholar would clearly be irrelevant in this case. Google News and Google Books would be more relevant. However, I believe a business of this kind would, if notable, have significant coverage on internet sites. It is a completely different matter for, say, an advanced mathematical concept, or a historical person who is significant within his or her relevant niche, but not well known to the general public. Even so, a check of Google News and Google Books would have been a good idea: thanks for pointing this out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Advice requested
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi JamesBWatson. I just wondered whether you could offer your take on something. I've recently create-protected the pages Moshi Elites, Akachan Family and Moshi Elites (Akachan Family) due to repeated recreation by socks of User:Moshi Elites (all blocked). According to the text of the deleted pages, an alternative title for this group is Gokazoku Akachan - at present, a page with this title has never been created, although given their past behaviour (and their newfound inability to page create under any of the above titles) it seems likely that User:Moshi Elites will bang out a new sock and try creating Gokazoku Akachan fairly soon. My question is: given that protection is not supposed to be a pre-emptive action, is it appropriate for me to create-protect Gokazoku Akachan at this point, or should I wait for it to be created and speedy-deleted first? Yunshui雲水 08:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting question, and I can think of several possible answers, looking at it from various different points of view. I can see a case for a WP:IAR pre-emptive protection, but personally I wouldn't do it, for several reasons. Probably the most important one is that if you protect Gokazoku Akachan then the editor can just create Gokazoku akachan, or Gokazoku Akachan (Moshi Elites), or something else neither you nor I have thought of, so there really isn't any point. The problem has been going on for only a few days, and there is a good chance the editor will get the message and give up, so my inclination at this stage would be to wait and see. However, if and when you do decide that the time has come for pre-emptive action, a much better approach than trying to guess what new titles to protect is to have it blacklisted at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. A very simple thing would be to have a block on any title containing both "Gokazoku" and "Akachan", both of them case insensitive.
Two small points. Technically, they are sockpuupets of User:Jhedah12, who has been around (though inactive) since July 2009, whereas the others have all been created between 8th and 12th October 2012, if I remember correctly. (Not that it makes any difference, in my opinion, but some people think it does, so we may as well go by the book.) I have deleted Talk:Moshi Elites (Akachan Family), which you missed.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that pretty much ties in with my own thinking on the matter. Hadn't considered the blacklist option; if they continue I'll go down that road. I'll also go back and change the sockpuppet templates to reflect the original account (due to the unambiguously anatidean nature of the edit patterns I didn't file an SPI, but should that ever be necessary it would be sensible to attribute the oldest account as the puppeteer).
(Thanks also for catching that rogue talkpage!). Yunshui雲水 12:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I see you've already sorted the puppetry templates; my gratitude for that as well. Yunshui雲水 12:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Going to put this one in your corner, since it involves a blatant copyright violation. About three-quarters of the Lord Fairfax Community College page is taken almost word-for-word from this PDF document. It is the 2011-2012 LFCC Strategic Plan. I could just delete a bunch of text, but I'd probably get in trouble and since this is going to require admin work anyway, I hand this off to you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Miss Glamorous
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I saw that you blocked SCWA Ladies Champion and her sock, Miss Glamorous, but I think you may have missed her previous incarnation: Watch Yo Face (talk·contribs·block user). This account seems to have been abandond since 19 September, but may be worth blocking anyway. Cheers! --Wasell(T) 20:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't block either SCWA Ladies Champion or Miss Glamorous, I just corrected a mistake made by another administrator in the block for Miss Glamorous, which makes my user name show up as the last admin to touch the block log. However, I have now blocked Watch Yo Face. Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canada's Next Top Model, Cycle 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. A while ago you blocked a new editor for copyright violations. Unfortunately this editor has since continued to upload images without licensing or owner's permission, and placing them into Wikipedia articles. To make matters worse, this editor doesn't reply to messages left on her/his talk page. Could you please look into this issue? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsaim (talk • contribs) 08:28, 14 October 2012Amsaim (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. It should have been stopped months ago. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Query about value + propriety of contribution
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
James, I need an eagle eye for this one. I'd like to enter into the list of rings for the finger the Jewish 5 metals ring Ring (jewellery), and have a photo that is safe to utilise without copyvio - my problem is knowing whether you think this cuts the mustard as an entry on that list. I have contributed heavily to the list itself, but now I've lost confidence. Will you look this over for me?
The intended entry will include this text and a copyvio-safe image of the ring (since it is an image taken of my personal ring, but this does not violate WP:OR):
Five Metals ring is suggested by the TALMUD in order to grant additional favors to the wearer. Five metals mined from the earth (gold, silver, copper, tin and lead) are to be joined but not alloyed into a ring. It can only be manufactured once a month, "when the moon is in Jupiter", over a five-hour period from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. This has commonly taken the form of a sterling silver ring with tablets of gold, tin, lead and copper set into the bezel. The Talmud states, "Bear [the ring] upon thee, and thou shalt see miracles." From the Talmud, Sefer Refuach Va Chaim (The Book of Spirit and Life)
At present, as far as I can see, there is nothing about the five metals rings in the article, but I see no reason why you shouldn't add a brief mention of it, and a picture to illustrate it. In fact, I think it would be a good idea. The one possible problem would be finding a reliable source. A very quick glance through a Google search certainly confirmed the existence of five metals rings, but mostly I found either commercial sites advertising the rings, or pages which are obviously not reliable sources, such as FaceBook. However, there were a few pages that look as though they may possibly be better, such as this one. A Google books search here produces a few books which I should think are reliable sources, but I have not taken the time to check what they actually say about the rings. You may like to do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't really help you on the sort of thing you are referring to. I know nothing about the subject, and had never even heard of the five metals ring until you posted here. All I have to go on is what I saw in a couple of quick Google searches, and even my comments about the reliability of the sources are based only on a quick glance. However, my suggestion is that you add a mention of the five metals ring, with something that looks to you like a good source, and your picture. The worst that is likely to happen is that someone else disagrees with you about the source, and removes it. It's not the kind of editing that anyone can reasonably regard as vandalism or anything of the sort. If someone does contest the edit (and my guess is that they won't), you have the option of either dropping the matter and moving on, or politely explaining why you disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I always thought, actually, that this would happen, probably sooner rather than later. However, I prefer to give people a chance to improve. Some people do take that chance, and I have known people who started out doing nothing but vandalism change their ways and become really good editors. Many don't, but not a lost is lost by giving them the chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have only uploaded files fairly rarely, and when I have done so I have sometimes found the process confusing. However, as far as I can see, if you go to Commons::Commons:Upload and click the link at "It is entirely my own work", it doesn't look as though it asks for all that sort of stuff. (However, since I haven't got a file to upload right now, I haven't tried clicking the "Upload file" button, so I don't know if further questions then appear.) Have you tried that method? If not, I suggest giving it a try. If you do try that (or already have) and you still have problems, I suggest asking for help at the help desk, as there is bound to be someone there who knows more about image-uploading than I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that DVdm claims that an editor can simply post "in whatever place suits that editor". As I read it, he/she is merely saying that, in the particular case in question, the particular posting was reasonable, which is not at all the same thing. In general, new posts go at the bottom. However, if post Z is a direct answer to post A, and posts C, D, E and F come after A and before Z, it can be difficult to follow the thread of a discussion, so usual practice is to put Z after A, but to indent it, to make it clear that it is attached to A, and that B does not relate back to it. (That is exactly what I am doing here: this message is a reply to yours beginning "Watson, a bit of bother", so it follows that post and is indented, while your next post, beginning "Forgive me, something much bigger", does not reply to that one or to this one, so I am removing your indentation. My reply to that post comes after it, and is indented.) In the case in question, the new post you objected to was an answer to an earlier post, and quite rightly was placed after it and indented. You pointed out that it came before your post, which also responded to the earlier post, so it might have been better to put the new one after yours. The only problem with that was that your post was not indented, so if the new post had been placed after yours and indented, it would have looked like a response to your post, which it wasn't, while if it had been placed after your post and not indented, it would not have been clear it related to the earlier one. The editor making the new post had two reasonable options: either indent your message and put his (equally indented) after yours, or put his, indented, before yours. The former might have been better, but I don't think we can fault him/her for choosing the latter. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have, quite rightly, removed some questionable unsourced content from the article. A Google search indicates that the expression "Pinky ring" does exist, with the meaning that the article gives it. The article is essentially due to an editor called "Ringmaster99", whose entire Wikipedia editing career consists of three edits to this article and uploading an image to use in it, all done in a period of less than 24 hours in December 2007. Before that, the page was a redirect to Engineer's Ring (itself an article that lacks independent sources). The article has never had much content, and what there has been has always been unsourced. It's not a very good article, really providing little if any useful information beyond a definition of what "pinky ring" means, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so you could make a reasonable case for deletion. Personally, I wouldn't bother, because, although I don't see a lot of point in the article, I don't see it does any harm. However, that is just my feeling, and if you want to pursue deletion you are, of course free to do so.
If you do want to suggest deletion, I would first try a PROD, and only resort to AfD if the PROD is contested. If you have never used a PROD before, first have a look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to make sure you understand what it means. Making the deletion proposal is easy: just add {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=blaa blaa blaa}} to the top of the article, only replace "blaa blaa blaa" with your reason for proposed deletion. It is normally considered a courtesy to inform the author of the article. In the case of an editor who has not edited for nearly five years there is probably little point, though little is lost by doing so anyway.
If you do want to do an AfD, there are full instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion, but I don't recommend following those instructions, the process is a little complicated, and confusing if you are not used to it. A far easier method is to first install Twinkle, and then you will have a tab at the top of every Wikipedia page marked xfd. Using that tab will result in most of teh process being automated, making it much easier for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Douglas_Tait_(stuntman) article that you sent an earlier version of to AfD was recreated earlier this year. I again sent it to AfD, but there was no consensus (largely because some editors relied on covereage in "articles" that have since been disavowed by the newspaper whose website they were posted on, so I think another AfD is a good idea). Anyway, the article again served as a promotional piece with many "references" to non-RSs, etc. My efforts to keep it from being used as that have been called into question by a disruptive IP. Would you mind taking a look at this ANI and posting you thoughts? Thanks. Novaseminary (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me as though you may well be right about the essential issues involved. However, I am unwilling to put in the enormous amount of time and trouble that it would take to check this fully. My only connection with the article is that, more than two years ago, I happened upon an earlier version of it that did not seem to show notability, so I suggested it might be deleted. I have no particular interest in the article, no knowledge of its subject, and no wish to be dragged into the interminable argument that is at ANI. I am unwilling to comment without having read through the ANI discussion, because doing so would run the risk that I would make comments that were completely invalidated by what has already been said. The discussion is so long that simply reading it all would take a significant amount of my time, let alone following all the links and checking all the relevant history. Discussions at ANI are one of the aspects of Wikipedia that I find least useful, and I usually avoid them, especially interminable quarrels like this one. I am sorry that this will not be the answer you hoped for, Novaseminary, but this is not an issue I am willing to get involved in. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write. If the article is AfD'd again, and based on comments at the ANI I think it will be, I hope you will consider weighing in there in what should be a discrete discussion of whether the subject meets N. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
A question--nothing more
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You ask "Is it possible for an admin to make hidden emendations to a post or hide edits from the edit history? " The short answer is that an admin can hide edits so that users can't read them, but not make "hidden emendations". An admin can use a process called revision deletion to make an edit invisible, but it still remains listed in the edit history, so you can tell there was an edit there. However, there is no way to change an existing edit so that it looks as though an editor did something different from what they really did. My guess is that you forgot what you did, even if it now seems highly improbable to you that you would ever have done it. To show you what revision deletion looks like, I have created a page at User:JamesBWatson/Revdel Illustration, edited it a few times, and then done some revision deletion to it. If you look at the page history, you will see that some edits are hidden. I have hidden the text at edit 5, but you can still see that I made an edit there. At edit 3 I have hidden who did the edit, and what edit summary was used, but you can still see what the edit was. Finally, for edit 7 I have hidden the content of the edit, who made the edit, and the edit summary. That is the maximum amount of hiding that an admin can so with revision deletion, and even then you can see from the page history that there was an edit, though not what the edit was. And there is no way I can change an edit so it looks as though it was different from what it really was: either I hide it so you can't see it, or I leave it as it was. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This guy is without doubt the sockmaster User:ABDEVILLIERS0007 (User:Mrpontiac1) who has been mass socking since at least 2009,[8] and keeps creating new accounts just to vandalise pages. He is Hindu but creates Pakistani Muslim names and he should be indef blocked. Thanks.--39.41.82.47 (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you tell me what makes you believe this is the same person? If you can give really convincing evidence then I will block the account indefinitely. If you can give evidence which is reasonably suggestive but not conclusive then I will take this to a sockpuppet investigation and request a checkuser. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Notice the capital letters in the edit summaries and name [9][10] . Another person suggested he is ABDEVILLIERS0007 [11]. On Afghanistan, confirmed sockpuppets of Mrpontiac1 constantly showed up to edit the same 1747-1818 Afghan-Sikh war stuff, defaming Afghans and glorifying Sikhs. Notice the google book link starts with "books.google.co.in" which suggests he's in India.[12]User:Theman244, who is also socking (i.e. User:Thejatt, User:Desijatt1), defaming Afghans and glorifying Sikhs, copy-pastes links with "books.google.co.in" [13] the same way as ABDEVILLIERS0007, Mrpontiac1, and the dozens of Mrpontiac1's confirmed socks.
Further, these confirmed socks of Mrpontiac1 have very similar names as ABDEVILLIERS0007, Desijatt1, Shahdaan Khan. (i.e. User:Desijattt[14] and User:ASHOKBINDUSARA). Shahdaan Khan is obviously a Muslim name (particularly Pakistani) but the operator is a Sikh/Hindu based on his edits and location, and he used many other sockpuppet names to try to pass as a Pakistani Muslim editor. [15] The bottom line is User:Shahdaan Khan and User:Theman244 are new undetected sockpuppets of the notorious sockmaster Mrpontiac1 and I think they should both be indef blocked.--39.41.82.47 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Original Barnstar
(don't know what a Barnstar means)
sorry if i violated anything i was just trying to update the page with the typography of one of the megan fox's image which i created myself using photoshop.I was unable to edit ,so i copied .
i will delete it if you want as you are an admin.
i'm new at wiki so help me show the right way. Rockers.vn (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Socks
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The IP is User:Lagoo sab see [16] for style of writing. Shahdaan Khan is ABDEVILLIERS0007 based on the use of caps and this [17][18] love of Hari Singh Nalwa. Hope this is of use to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
77.247.180.139 and more
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I see you blocked 77.247.180.139 as a proxy. It's part of a commercial (VPN) proxy actually. Perhaps you would like to help with the rest? See discussion here. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It is my pleasure...
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed that you have previously edited on this article. I have made some well sourced edits this morning on this account. While I do not claim neutrality, I attempted to scrub the post of any opinion or unsubstantiated facts. I am sure Ms. Sachs daughter will be trying to scrub the truthful information that puts her mother in a bad light.
I am asking for assistance in reviewing my edits and assigning somebody to maintain neutrality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Notice
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear James,
Completely understand. My only point is this paragraph:
"Bernard Lewis states that the Muslim laity and Islamic authorities have always had great difficulty in accommodating post-Islamic monotheistic religions such as the Bahá'í Faith, since the followers of such religions cannot be dismissed either as benighted heathens, like the polytheists of Asia and the animists of Africa, nor as outdated precursors, like the Jews and Christians. Moreover, their very existence presents a challenge to the Islamic doctrine of the finality of Muhammad's revelation.[146]"
Neither is this paragraph neutral and this assertion is also completely unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srhzaidi (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is it not neutral? Is there some reason why we should not record the reaction that some Muslims make? Or is there some reason why we should not mention that a prominent historian has commented on the fact? Notice that dispassionately recording the fact that a prominent historian has mentioned the existence of certain opinions, without expressing any view as to the validity or otherwise of those opinions, is very different from what you have done, which is to insert your own, unsourced, opinions, stating them simply as facts. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Can I ask you to be a little more specific with your recent tag? Do you feel that there is anything in the article that reflects a COI or is NPOV? That article went through a pretty extensive revision process before being accepted through the AfC process; pointing out specific problems you see with it would probably be more helpful to the editor who worked on it than a blanket tag. Sindinero (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The trouble with being more specific is that if there were easily defined specific problems then it would be easy to put them right, and I would not have had any reason to put a conflict of interest tag there at all. The article is certainly not still written in the blatantly promotional language that was used in the first drafts: if it had been, then I wouldn't have wasted my time on tagging it for conflict of interest, as speedy deletion would have been appropriate. Nor are there a few specific details that are clearly non-neutral: if there were then it would have been easy to have improved or removed the relevant bits. However, the whole thing has a general feel of being written to present the project from the point of view of those involved, and the overall impression is that it is written to tell us what the project sees as its own role. Yes, a number of editors have done a very good job of getting rid of the blatantly promotional language, such as "Through its innovative scientific journalism, original articles, and open access websites, the Project provides scientific and intellectual resources for a healthy and sustainable future." However, what remains, while not using such language, still seems to contain the same message, which is how the project would like to present itself. Immediately after the lead we see a section headed "Philosophy and Mission", which is nothing other than an attempt to promote the project's own preferred view of itself. (Indeed, I am not sure that the word "mission" is ever used by impartial outsiders to describe the aims of an organisation: if it is, then it is rarely so used. It's one of those PR words like "solution".) And so the article goes on. The wording has been substantially changed from the initial spam version, but the message hasn't. Going back to the issue of being "more specific", there have been successive attempts to have the conflict of interest template deleted, using the argument that one should always more precisely address the specific issues, rather than making a general comment about conflict of interest. However, one of the main reasons why each such deletion proposal has been rejected is that the template is useful precisely for those cases where it is not easy to be specific. It is not needed for the "My god! Here's someone using Wikipedia to post an advertisement!" cases, nor for the "Oh dear, this particular paragraph is not very neutral" cases, but it is useful for the "Hmm: I would be hard put to pin down specific details to single out, but the overall feel of this is that it is written to present the subject from an insider's point of view" cases. Although I have not been able to be very specific, I hope that my remarks have helped to give some sort of indication of what I think. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
After writing that, I noticed something very interesting. The very first sentence of the article describes it as "a public interest organization", and links to the article Public interest. The lead of that article says "While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest ..." Indeed so. So what does that say for the neutrality of the account in the lead of Bioscience Resource Project? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and detailed response. It might be useful to mention some of this on the article talk page, so that the editors involved have some idea of why the template is there. As for your second point, I don't think that's very significant. "Public interest organization" is a pretty common term, and I don't think that the first sentence of a linked article has any bearing on the neutrality of editors working on another article. (When I was also a wp newbie, I had the impression that linking is what one does on wp, regardless of the status of the linked articles or the sometimes strange juxtapositions that resulted.) I understand "Public interest organization" in this context as simply a shorthand for characterizing what kind of organization this is (as opposed to consumer rights, lobbying, professional, etc., etc.). Sindinero (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, I accept that, and I withdraw the comment. I will try and remember to put something on the article talk page tomorrow, but I'm afraid for now I'm out of time. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your input. I hope it helps the article! Sindinero (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see that User:Graeme Bartlett recently overturned your speedy deletion of the Southern Stars poster page. Did he discuss this with you or did he just arbitrarily decide that his opinion is more important? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I was neither consulted nor informed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Cheers:
Since when does Wikipedia delete entire articles based on one contributor's copyrighted addition? There have been quite a few contributors to this article, you could at least have the courtesy to notify them that you are deleting it. Bastique☎ call me! 01:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't delete the article "based on one contributor's copyrighted addition". I deleted it on the basis that the article contained copyright infringing content right from its first version, so that it was, unfortunately impossible to remove only versions with the copyright infringing content, and roll back to a clean version. Criterion for speedy deletion G12 says "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained." On this occasion, there are no "earlier versions without infringement". If the copyright infringement had indeed been an "addition" to an existing article then the situation would have been completely different. I have frequently reverted copyright infringing pages to earlier, non-infringing versions, and I never speedily delete under criterion G12 if doing that is a possible option.
You have knowingly restored to a public website, where anyone can view it, material which you yourself stated infringed copyright. That is illegal. The fact that one has to go through the process of first clicking on a link labelled "history" to get access to the illegally copied content does not make it any more legal to place such content on public display.
You may like to review your comment above. Despite starting with the word "Cheers", it reads to me more like a reprimand for doing something that you have decided is wrong than like a courteous request for discussion of an issue where you and I have different opinions. I trust that my impression is wrong, and you did not intend it the way I read it.
I see that you chose to revert the action of another administrator Misuse of administrative tools says should usually be done only after consultation. I do appreciate the fact that you informed me of what you did, and I thank you for that, but I would be interested to know why you decided that this case merited an exception to the usual practice of first consulting the admin whose action you are reverting, as required by policy. I look forward to reading your explanation.
I have never before, as far as I recall, come across the suggestion that, in the case of a speedy deletion, all contributors should be informed. Policy recommends that the creator and "major contributors" be informed by the nominator. Since the creator had not been informed by the nominator, I informed her. I also checked the editing history, and as far as I could see nobody else had made more than minor contributions. If I have missed anyone who could reasonably be considered a "major contributor" then I apologise: perhaps you could point out who it is.
Since you had previously edited the article, you might well be considered to be involved, so perhaps you would have been better advised to have raised the possibility of undeletion for discussion, rather than going ahead yourself.
Thank you for your extensive explanation. I apologize if I misinterpreted your rationale for deletion as inappropriate and I admit that I was hasty in restoring the article before contacting you--I haven't had much time to edit recently, and it seemed the prudent course. I see now that there was no rush to restore the material.
Since plagiarizing portions of another website is not technically the reuse of copyrighted material; and since the administrators of Wikipedia have some considerable leniency with the removal of such material, it felt okay to me to restore. Past revisions are not present on the public facing version of an article, and I was unaware that policy required that all past revisions be removed--I should probably be more up on current policy, especially where such policy doesn't make obvious logical sense. For instance, some administrators have in the past removed material for copyright reasons out of convenience; creating ill will against the project for potential contributors. Sorry if my reversal of action was colored by that fact.
My rationale is as follows: If I had recreated the article from scratch, without restoring the past revisions, I would have been taking credit for non-plagiarized portions of the article that were not, in fact, written by me, which would have been plagiarization itself. I'm much more familiar with the subject of this particular article as well. I could have just as easily asked you to reverse yourself, but I feared, not knowing you, that it would have been a winding discussion about an article in which you had no personal interest; and I might have been using up extensive time that I don't possess trying to craft a convincing argument.
As it is, it seems, I've given extensive time creating an argument and apologizing besides. Bastique☎ call me! 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Problematic IP
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
the IP 24.146.246.15 seems is constantly removing a wikilink from Kashmiri people and has recently removed content from Santoor, the IP does it over and over despite the fact that I had left a few warnings on the IP's talk page. What should be done now? --Farah DesaiTalk 17:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Leandro
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi again. Sorry to have to come back to you, but it makes more sense for me to approach you, as you know all about this issue. Leandro is back on IP: 189.27.191.59 doing the same sort of stuff (changing icons/removing event location info). Could you please see to this IP too when you have spare time? Thanks Paralympiakos(talk) 20:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I would help us significantly.--LlamaAl (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) protect my page. If you can not change the ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite). I so wanted to be asked look here. Greting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
False sock puppet accusation--and I will not tolerate it
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It's considered uncivil to make Sock allegations without proof or without filing an SPI - money where your mouth is, and all that. In the old days it could go to WQA. It's not significant enough to land with any form of action on ANI. Be careful you don't land in "thou do'est protest too much" land, where your loud protests merely become proof that they're right (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well Wilkins, I thank you for weighing in here--I had a post for Watson, if I may, and it may interest you:
Watson, I now know exactly what has happened--because it has happened to me twice before. User:DrKiernan, who is accusing me of sockpuppetry, is conflating me with another user who seems to have shared IP addresses with me. It happened a lot back when I edited under my IP only--I did that because it was my desire not to register with WP. You recall I told you I did that since the 1990s, until I registered with my present username. In fact when I edited under my IP only--it was safe since it was incredibly dynamic--I noted many editors who had very close IPs to mine.
After I registered with the present username, there was one instance when some editors decided I was someone else, sockpuppeting, so that was the 2nd time I had been accused. Kiernan makes 3 times, though he has only tried to frighten me at my talk page because he knows he can't link me to an IP that is 2 years old. Should I report his actions someplace? Realising you're busy, I ask your help in this. I don't know a thing about IPs, how they flux, how often, nor do I have time to be tracking users and IP addresses to see if they 'match'. Others seem to have all the time in the world and they only do it to trump up charges.
